Linux

63471 readers

614 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

nooter692@lemmy.ml

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

What sense is licensing operating system on BSD license? (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 day ago by mlxdy@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Change my mind.

Companies are just taking BSD code and don't contribute to it. At the end they're selecting Linux even if there's licensing risk and they have contribute to code. Why? Because Linux have a lot of contributors, that makes it much more advanced system with more features. Also companies which want to support Linux don't have to worry that someone would close their code or code they funded with money. It's not about competition but collaboration. GPL license allowed us also to sell own open-source solutions.

FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD are behind Linux. I love that systems (especially OpenBSD), but I don't see a point in contributing or donating to them. Instead of being ready to use solutions they're trying to be base for commercial closed-source products and it would be great as contributors could get something from that, but they get nothing.

I understand that BSD see closed source as something cool and way to commercialize software, but in today times where a lot of devices have 24/7 access to internet, microphones, cameras and at the same time to sensitive data it's extremely dangerous. Closed source is used to hide backdoors, acts of surveillance and keeping monopoly on market which obviously stop evolution of software.

Please tell me how BSD license can be good solution for operating system. It's not about offending BSD, but as someone who love open source software I hate closed source software I would like to know how I can defend this license.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] medem@lemmy.wtf 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I understand that BSD see closed source as something cool

'You understand'? Where did you get that idea?

The argument is not, and was never, that closed source is cool. The argument is that strong copyleft, while based on a noble goal, ends up hindering development: Here's OpenBSD's take on it. (CTRL+F for GPL).

[–] mlxdy@lemmy.world 1 points 21 hours ago

So if they see closed source source as something not cool why they allow to close their source code?

Of course, strong copyleft licenses sometimes can hindering development for example GPL and CDDL license conflict don't allow adding ZFS support to Linux Kernel. But it will not help with development when corpos are more taking than giving to project. Just look where's Linux and where's BSD - you can see how GPL hinder that development.

And why they see GPL license unacceptable in commercial use? For me unacceptable is to close source code, no matter if it's for commercial use or not. For me open source is alternative for that shitty closed source commercial software. If I'll try to make my own open-source commercial product based on BSD license it would be impossible. Competitor with more money for marketing will just take and close my source code, add few improvements then sell it as own product. Why I would like to risk that?

[–] grue@lemmy.world -1 points 1 day ago

If that's not the argument, then the alternative is that they're hopelessly naive.